1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a system for launching precision guided munitions (PGMs), artillery rockets/missiles, and cruise missiles from an aircraft and, more particularly, to a highly efficient, cost-effective system for launching the same from tail loading cargo aircraft. According to the system of the present invention, PGMs, artillery rockets/missiles, and/or cruise missiles are packaged in munition ejection containers containers (MECs), arranged in a storage rack in the cargo hold of the aircraft and individually launched from the cargo door of the aircraft, whereupon the container is subjected to wind forces which strip the container from the munition(s) contained therein. With the container and various packaging inserts removed, the munition(s) can assume a flight path towards a designated target.
2. Discussion of the Related Art
The first known use of ground attack aviation occurred during World War I when bi-plane pilots, initially shooting each other with pistols, later progressed to dropping hand grenades on enemy ground troops. In subsequent years, anti-aircraft defense technologies continued to improve, as fighter and bomber aircraft, and the weapons they carried, grew more capable, sophisticated, lethal and expensive. In an effort to increase the effect of aerial munitions, precision guided munitions and cruise missiles were developed to avoid ground-based defenses and to increase the probability of killing the target with one aircraft sortie and one weapon. Unfortunately, the constant research and development needed to increase the survivability and effectiveness of fighter and bomber aircraft, and the weapons carried on these aircraft, has grown increasingly and, in some instances, prohibitively expensive.
The United States Air Force (USAF) currently uses dedicated fighter aircraft (e.g., the F-15E, F-16, and F-117) and bomber aircraft (e.g., the B-52, B-1, and B-2) to deliver bombs, missiles and precision guided munitions (PGMs) against ground targets. These aircraft, which are limited in number, are all considerably costly to manufacture, fly and maintain. Accordingly, their use as a platform to launch cruise missiles in a stand-off scenario, wherein enemy threat to the aircraft is minimal, amounts to a highly uneconomical and inefficient use of defense resources. It is, therefore, not surprising that despite the desire to acquire precision guided munitions (PGMs) and cruise missiles, the air forces of many countries are deterred from doing so due to the expense of purchasing and maintaining the sophisticated fighter or bomber aircraft required to deploy these weapons.
Fighter aircraft, such as the F-15E or F-117, which are capable of flying at night and in bad weather and surviving against the most capable enemy air defense systems ever developed and deployed, cost more than $50 million per aircraft to produce and thousands of dollars an hour to fly. Moreover, currently used fighter aircraft require highly sophisticated and expensive logistics support systems. At present, the USAF maintains only about 52 F-117 fighter aircraft and 200 F-15E fighter aircraft in inventory. And, while the B-52 bomber cost only about $10 million when produced in the early 1960""s, these large aircraft are extremely expensive to fly and support due to their 8 jet engines and the maintenance required to support their aging air frames. Even more expensive are the B-1 and B-2 bombers which typically cost anywhere from 5 to 20 times more per flight hour to support than the F-15E and F-117 fighters.
To further complicate matters, the USAF uses a different cruise missile than the United States Navy (USN), resulting in increased costs of developing, producing and supporting the systems of each military branch. Both the USAF and USN have a long history of researching, developing, testing and producing different weapon systems that achieve the same end using different launch platforms. For instance, the USAF uses inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBM""s) and air launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) and its conventional war head variant (CALCM), while the USN uses submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and the Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM). These practices have been justified in the past due to the radically different environments in which these systems have been deployed. The differences between the USN TLAM and the USAF CALCM launch platforms offers an excellent illustration of the challenge of developing a common weapons system that will meet the diverse needs of both services. For instance, the USN is able to launch the same basic TLAM missile several different ways from both submarine and surface ship platforms, and a variety of missiles in a dense format from a single launch system. The USAF, on the other hand, is presently limited to use of expensive and somewhat limited numbers of bomber and fighter aircraft to deploy similar weapons.
On most fighter and bomber aircraft, weapons can be carried either externally or internally. External carriage on aircraft allows more weapons to be carried, but with several disadvantages. In particular, the carriage of weapons externally creates considerable aerodynamic drag, which significantly reduces the payload/range of the aircraft. These aerodynamic loads also impose considerable stress and vibration on the weapon. Other factors to consider are the size, weight, and shape of the weapon, in addition to the number of weapons carried, their position on the pylon, other external stores carried, air speeds flown, etc. These and other factors must be carefully modeled, and the different external stores configurations need to be flight tested in a variety of mission profiles, to ensure that the aircraft and PGM reliability are not compromised. External weapon carriage also significantly increases the radar return of the aircraft. For this reason, the modern and more stealthy aircraft, such as the B-1 and B-2 bombers and the F-22 fighter use only internal weapon carriage.
While internal weapon carriage is far more efficient from aerodynamic (range/payload) and radar signature points of view, it is very inefficient from a payload volumetric density perspective. Each ALCM weighs about 3,000 pounds and their rotary launcher about the same, with the combined installed payload of 8 rotary launched missiles weighing about 27,000 pounds. This figure would double to approximately 54,000 pounds when 16 ALCMs on rotary launchers are installed in the B-2 bomber, which is an impressive payload. However, it is operationally unlikely that 16 ALCMs would be carried simultaneously due to the need to employ other PGMs during the same mission, which weigh only about 2,000 pounds each. The smaller PGM payloads, using the same rotary launchers, would then limit the bomber to only 16 PGMs, significantly less than the air frame""s maximum payload capacity if the munitions were carried in a more efficient format. The use of other types of munition racks (e.g., in the B-52, B-1 and B-2 bombers) allows the loading of large numbers of smaller munitions, but munition types cannot be mixed in the same payload bay. Thus, the potential load configurations and employment options are limited.
Another factor to consider is the limited operational availability of the USAF bomber inventory. Present reports show an inventory of 90 B-52 bombers, 90 B-1 bombers, and 21 B-2 bombers. This total of approximately 200 bombers is significantly reduced by aircraft undergoing short or long term maintenance, modifications, flight testing, and crew training, which typically leaves only 100-120 available aircraft at any one time for deployment and combat operations.
A further disadvantage of using bomber aircraft to deliver cruise missiles or other PGMs, beyond the expense and limited number of available bombers, is their extreme visibility which causes neutral parties, and even allies, to deny over-flight and basing rights. Additionally, bombers require long runways and extensive support facilities, which limits their potential deployments to a relatively small number of allied air bases.
Military transports, on the other hand, are less imposing on foreign allies and are more plentiful in numbers. For instance, the USAF uses military transports such as the C-130, C-141, C-17 and C-5. These aircraft are frequently in and out of numerous foreign military and civilian air fields on a daily, routine basis. This is especially true of the C-130. Due to their relatively small size (in comparison to the B-52 bomber), short take off and landing (STOL) ability, and rugged, low cost airframe (currently about $60-70 million each), C-130""s are used for a variety of Department of Defense missions. In addition to the several hundred C-130""s flown by the USAF Active Duty, Reserve, and Air National Guard Units, this is one of the most common aircraft in foreign air force inventories, with hundreds currently being flown in several dozen countries. In fact, the USAF currently maintains approximately 600 C-130""s, which is three times more numerous than the current USAF bomber inventory. Additionally, the USAF maintains approximately 200 C-141""s and C-17""s and 120 C-5""s in inventory.
In summary, the air forces of the United States and many other foreign countries are caught in a fundamental dilemma. While Navy cruise missiles like the TLAM are encapsulated, stored in a vertical launch tube, and employed from a wide variety of platforms with a minimum of support, air forces are left deploying long range land attack cruise missiles on large, expensive aircraft like the B-52, B-51 and B-2 bombers, which are only available in limited numbers. Cruise missiles with ranges of 600 or more nautical miles do not require expensive penetration technologies found on bomber aircraft, yet these are the only air frames which are presently being used to launch these munitions. Cargo aircraft, such as the C-130, on the other hand, exist in large numbers, are inexpensive to acquire and maintain, can be used for multiple missions, and are so common that their appearance or over-flight draws no attention from civilians or government.
Accordingly, there is an urgent need to provide a more efficient and cost effective means for launching PGM, artillery rockets/missiles, and cruise missiles from aircraft. More specifically, there is a need for a convenient method to store, support, and launch existing PGM, artillery rockets/missiles, and cruise missiles from C-130 and other larger military transport aircraft, thereby providing tremendous acquisition, support and operational efficiencies without compromising the current fighter or bomber force structure or an air force""s ability to respond to mission taskings which rely heavily on fighter and bomber support.
With the foregoing discussion in mind, it is a primary object of the present invention to provide a highly efficient and cost-effective system for launching cruise missiles from aircraft other than fighter or bomber aircraft.
It is a further object of the present invention to provide a system for air launching inertially guided artillery rockets and missiles from transport/cargo aircraft, thereby greatly increasing air force munition and attack options.
It is still a further object of the present invention to provide a system for launching a variety of munitions from a military transport aircraft, such as a C-130, C-141, C-17 or C-5.
It is still a further object of the present invention to provide a system for launching PGMs, artillery rockets/missiles, and cruise missiles from a transport/cargo aircraft, thereby providing large payload and extended range capabilities.
It is still a further object of the present invention to provide a system for launching PGMs, artillery rockets/missiles, and cruise missiles from an aircraft which is more cost effective and efficient to fly than a bomber or fighter aircraft, particularly in a permissive air environment.
It is yet a further object of the present invention to provide a system for launching PGMs, artillery rockets/missiles, and cruise missiles from a transport/cargo aircraft, thereby reducing attention drawn from civilians and foreign governments and increasing the likelihood of over-flight and/or basing rights in neutral and in foreign ally countries.
It is still a further object of the present invention to provide a system for launching PGMs, artillery rockets/missiles, and cruise missiles from a transport/cargo aircraft which provides increased acquisition, supports, and operational efficiencies without compromising an air force""s fighter or bomber force structure or its ability to respond to mission taskings which rely heavily on fighter and bomber support.
These and other objects and advantages of the present invention are more readily apparent with reference to the following disclosure and accompanying drawings.
The present invention is directed to a system for launching precision guided munitions (PGMs), artillery rockets/missiles, and cruise missiles from an aircraft. The system includes a mobile unit having a storage compartment provided with a rack assembly arranged to define multiple tiers for storing munition ejection containers (MECs) therein. An elevator apparatus raises and lowers a tray between the tiers in order to load and remove the MEC""s from predetermined storage positions on the multiple tier rack assembly. Each MEC is structured to encapsulate one or more PGMs, artillery rockets/missles, or cruise missiles and includes forward and rear end plates attached to longitudinal side panels. Pre-formed packing inserts protectively surround and stabilize the missile(s) contained in the MEC. An ejection ramp extends from the aft end of the mobile unit for individually directing the MEC""s through a cargo door of the aircraft for ejection therefrom. Once ejected, the MEC end plate unlocks, which causes the end plates, side panels, and packing inserts to be stripped from the encapsulated munition(s) by the wind blast, thereby enabling the PGMs, rockets, or missiles to assume its designed aerodynamic flight attitude in following a pre-programmed flight path to a designated target.